CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170High Court2014#38 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation authority for?

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

1,158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation · 366 ITR 170 · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · employees contribution to provident fund · delayed deposit of PF · disallowance of employee contribution · due date for deposit · welfare fund contributions · EPF Act due date · Checkmate Services

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 1961Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

employees contribution to pfsection 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 2(24)section 43bsection 43section 36section 36(1)section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 771/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

M/S. Optimal Strategix Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 842/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…

Shri Umesh Raosaheb Pawar, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, Ground No.2

ITA 1901/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

Exmabn Security Services Pvt.Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, Jamshedpur

In the result, ITA No. 49/RAN/2021 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/RAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…favour of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to hear these appeals out of turn today itself. 4. The ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation –vs.- CIT reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 5. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon a large number of decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. In the past, we have considered similar types of issues in a large number of appeals. We take note of the finding of ITAT, Kolkata dated 2nd August, 2022 in ITA Nos. 67 & 68/RAN/2021 in the…

Exmam Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 49/RAN/2021 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/RAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…favour of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to hear these appeals out of turn today itself. 4. The ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation –vs.- CIT reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 5. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon a large number of decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. In the past, we have considered similar types of issues in a large number of appeals. We take note of the finding of ITAT, Kolkata dated 2nd August, 2022 in ITA Nos. 67 & 68/RAN/2021 in the…

Sh. Amrik Singh Garewal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 543/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jainआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 543/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Amrik Singh Garewal, Dcit, Cpc, Bangluru बनाम 223-224, Ind Area Phasae-1, Current Jao, Dcit, Chandigarh 160028 Circle-1,Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. None (submissions of Sh. Neeraj Jain)For Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case…

M/S Basant Mechanical Works, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Circle IV, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 541/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jainआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Basant Mechanical Works, 1. Dcit, Cpc, बनाम 720-21, Ind. Area-B, Banglore Ludhiana, Punjab 2. Jurisdiction Ao- 141003 Jcit, Circle Iv, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabfb0687M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kaura, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.” 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. Samsherbhai Dadubhai Chauhan, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 214/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Samsherbhai Dadubhai Ward-1(2)(1), Vs Chauhan, Vadodara Flat No.1, Chauhan Compound, Dadunagar, Tarsali, Vadodara, Gujarat-390009 Pan : Aerpc 8318 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Cit(A)”In Short] Dated 06.07.2021 & The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Therein Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…record. It is observed that the solitary issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.)/ [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically held that in the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, the same will not be deductable in computing income under Section 28 of the Act. It is observed that in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High C…

Bharat Silks, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 683/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.) The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements which are usually relied upon by appellants…

Rsg Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITA 1478/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) and Ms. Rajeshjwari R., JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…vered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act – the Tribunal was right in holding that payments are subject to benefits of Section 43B. 8. We have examined the decision of the Hon‘ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) wherein the court has held the the payment were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va).It was held as under: “Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employee's…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt . Director of Income Tax, CPC, Ward2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 9/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…rior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and…

Ritesh Tandon, Jabalpur vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax WD2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 11/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…rior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant year. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in Popular Vehicles & Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxman.com 13 (Ker); CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decisions, it held that in view of the cleavage of judicial opinion in the matter and…

M/S. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise, Khambhaliya vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…rovident Fund Organization, grace period of 5 days has been removed w.e.f. Contribution for month of January, 2016. Further, as per the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-II v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld disallowance u/s. 38(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act on account of late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI where assessee did not deposit contribution to employees account in relevant fund before due date prescribed in Explanation to section 38(l)(va), no deduction would be admissible ev…

Gtt Communications India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 463/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. I.T.A No. Asstt. Year Appellant Respondent No. 1. 435/PUN/2021 2018-19 Gallagher Service Center The Dy. CIT, LLP CPC, 401 A,B,C,D,E,F & G, Delta Bangaluru 2, Gigaspace Complex, Viman Nagar, Pune-411 014 PAN: AAQFG 7417F 2. 463/PUN/2021 201819 GTT Communications (I) Pvt. -do- Ltd., 8th floor, Panchil Tech Park, Next to Rahul Theatre, Shivajinagar, Pune. PAN: AACCH6604C 3. 467/PUN/2021 2018-19 Apidor Abrasive Products Assessing Pvt. Ltd Gat No. 40/1, 10th Officer, Mile,…

Gallagher Service Center LLP, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 435/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. I.T.A No. Asstt. Year Appellant Respondent No. 1. 435/PUN/2021 2018-19 Gallagher Service Center The Dy. CIT, LLP CPC, 401 A,B,C,D,E,F & G, Delta Bangaluru 2, Gigaspace Complex, Viman Nagar, Pune-411 014 PAN: AAQFG 7417F 2. 463/PUN/2021 201819 GTT Communications (I) Pvt. -do- Ltd., 8th floor, Panchil Tech Park, Next to Rahul Theatre, Shivajinagar, Pune. PAN: AACCH6604C 3. 467/PUN/2021 2018-19 Apidor Abrasive Products Assessing Pvt. Ltd Gat No. 40/1, 10th Officer, Mile,…

Arnold Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provi…